l, namely: Study 1 (N = 528) which examined sex differences in sources of anger and upset (e.g., about sexual aggressiveness or withholding) among 2 samples of Ss differing in age and marital status; Study 2 (N = 60) which assessed the perceived magnitude of upset each sex would experience when confronted by each source; and Study 3 (N = 214) which tested predictions within married couples about sex differences in sources of marital and sexual dissatisfaction.
These studies, according to Buss, provide modest support for the strategic conflict model and implicate the negative emotions of anger and upset as proximate mechanisms that alert men and women to strategic interference. Moreover, the diversity of upset elicitors discovered here (being condescending, possessive, neglecting, abusive, inconsiderate, moody, and self-centered), point to the limitations of this evolutionary model and the need to develop more comprehensive models of conflict between the sexes.
At a closer look, the following observations and comments have been drawn: First, the highly selective samples of American college students and their generalizability may be limited. There is an uneven distribution of subjects, with 51 men and 56 women.
Second, the reliance on self-report measures, although that has been the methodology of choice in most research examining sexual desires may not yield and objective result. Self-rating method can be bias in the sense that the subjects feelings and prejudice may interfere with the results.
Moreover, the subjects have so many differences. They come from different backgrounds and have differing knowledge and perceptions of the same and opposite sexes of participants. They also differ in dating history and marital status. The ones with longer dating history may have different perceptions and experiences with those of short-term dating. The married ones, divorced, widowed and singles have definitely different experiences and maturity.
In addition, this is a